Are the Programmers Gods?

[Heyo]

No and here is why. Simulations are always a surprise. You don't know what they are going to do. You run a simulation to find out what happens. Simulations require experimentation. You don't just pull out a set of rules and have them work perfectly. If you manage this then you have already simulated them in your head enough times to come up with a correct solution. To run a simulation you must be interested in what is happening with it. That means its process affects you in some way. Its time affects you whether you experience time or not.

I don't understand how that is an explanation. Are you saying that, if the programmers are influenced by their creation, they can't be gods?

 

[Link]

They are great, but not gods. There are grades of reverence, the highest belongs to the Creator, hence, only one God. I will call them Angels and honored servants of God with great powers from God.

Those who are too loose with language, and want the word we reserve for exalting God higher then the exalted ones, to apply to exalted ones and Angels. Their intention is to belittle God with respect to his creation and this unforgivable on many levels, as any greatness or power they have, stems from God, and any intercession or help we receive by Angels, is by God's permission, and even the holy family of guidance, they intercede and help only by God's permission. He is the sole Master and to him should you direct your attention to and obedience to and prayers to and seek help from.

While it's okay to ask for help and ask for prayers on your behalf from chosen ones and Angels, it's not okay, to do so without remembering God and asking God to permit them and allow them to help you.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't understand how that is an explanation. Are you saying that, if the programmers are influenced by their creation, they can't be gods?

Either that or the word gods would simply refer to someone on the outside as opposed to someone on the inside. Consider that guards of a prison run a kind of simulation. The guard has the keys, and the prisoner does not. The guard then is like a god, and the prisoner is like a subject. How does this differ from living inside of a simulation? You're only defining a god by who is in and who is outside.

 

[Heyo]

Either that or the word gods would simply refer to someone on the outside as opposed to someone on the inside. Consider that guards of a prison run a kind of simulation. The guard has the keys, and the prisoner does not. The guard then is like a god, and the prisoner is like a subject. How does this differ from living inside of a simulation? You're only defining a god by who is in and who is outside.

Transcendence is not the only criterion. You overlooked omnipotent, omniscient and creator.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Transcendence is not the only criterion. You overlooked omnipotent, omniscient and creator.

I'm thinking about this limited omnipotence and limited omniscience in the OP.

If the programmers are limited to logic and to no future knowledge, then I think that means they will be forced to be surprised by their own simulations. A simulation accomplishes experimentally what cannot be accomplished through pure logic. It fills the gap which simple mathematical analysis cannot fill. Simulation (for engineers) is part of a design process allowing flaws to appear in a safe controlled situation.

I have a gripe: I don't think its a good idea to find one's own self to be a constructed being which is merely part of a simulation. Its not bad, but it also indicates a level of impermanence and pointlessness that goes beyond even what I have learned to accept (and I accept that death is the end of my time). If I am in a simulation then even my time is fake and also changeable. It makes me less significant than what is suggested by the Theory of Relativity. In that theory I can attach that I might be permanently set in the fortress of time with an irreversible past. I'm at least kind of permanent, like an eternal painting. The simulation idea makes me out to be even less significant. I don't like that. Let me be a shooting star rather than a trick of the light.

By the way -- if we are in a simulation it could imply that the universe exists to anticipate flaws in the construction of a future, real universe. That is one thing that simulations are very useful for, and since currently it does appear that our universe is scheduled to end I suspect that our simulation would probably be of the disposable kind. Then our universe would probably not be the end goal in that scenario. We would be eventually filed away as a failure and a new simulation started building upon the knowledge gained by observation of our own flawed and useless simulation.

Creator: A simulation begins with a creation but is a continuous process with unknown results. The finished result is unknown until the program completes. This can be the case with or without a simulation, but the difference is that a simulation is not permanent. A flawed creator would be wise to choose a simulation, in order that mistakes could be corrected. People use simulations. I think that a perfect creator would make a perfect world by virtue of the creator's own perfect nature and so would not need a simulation.

For my 1000th post I like to make an OP that handles two of my favorite topics: the Simulation Hypothesis and the question towards the nature of god(s).
Suppose we live in a simulation. This one is an accurate simulation of all quantum fields and particles. I.e. it is indistinguishable from the world we live in. I don't go into details as that isn't relevant to the question but feel free to ask when you have questions.
If we are living in such a simulation, it was created. Thus the programmers check one attribute that is often connected with deities. There are other attributes that also fit. Most notably:

• (Limited) omnipotence. The programmers could do anything to the simulation that doesn't break logic.
• (Limited) omniscience. The programmers could possibly know any state the system is in at the moment (but not the future).
• Transcendence. The programmers are "out of this world", in fact, they are not only in a parallel world but in a completely different state of being. They are also
• Out of Time. Their time doesn't have to correlate to our time. They could possibly speed up the simulation or halt it indefinitely. They were there before the universe started and they will be there when it ends.

Now to the title question: is a team of omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creators of the universe worthy to be called gods?

Of course I am most interested to hear from theists but non theists are also invited but please state the form your (non-) belief.

 

[Heyo]

I'm thinking about this limited omnipotence and limited omniscience in the OP.

If the programmers are limited to logic and to no future knowledge, then I think that means they will be forced to be surprised by their own simulations. A simulation accomplishes experimentally what cannot be accomplished through pure logic. It fills the gap which simple mathematical analysis cannot fill. Simulation (for engineers) is part of a design process allowing flaws to appear in a safe controlled situation.

Yes, that is by design. I wanted my creators to be rational. They should not suffer from "arguments of the stone" or similar logical traps.
[QUOTE}
I have a gripe: I don't think its a good idea to find one's own self to be a constructed being which is merely part of a simulation. Its not bad, but it also indicates a level of impermanence and pointlessness that goes beyond even what I have learned to accept (and I accept that death is the end of my time). If I am in a simulation then even my time is fake and also changeable. It makes me less significant than what is suggested by the Theory of Relativity. In that theory I can attach that I might be permanently set in the fortress of time with an irreversible past. I'm at least kind of permanent, like an eternal painting. The simulation idea makes me out to be even less significant. I don't like that. Let me be a shooting star rather than a trick of the light.
[/QUOTE]
That is exactly the point I often try to make when discussing with believers. If the laws of nature aren't real, anything can happen for any reason or no reason at all, including the end of the world/simulation. And some gods are even more powerful than programmers, see limited omnipotence.

People use simulations. I think that a perfect creator would make a perfect world by virtue of the creator's own perfect nature and so would not need a simulation.

That is a reason I can understand. Perfection is indeed a trait many people expect from their god(s) and that the programmers lack. Thank you for helping me understand.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Now to the title question: is a team of omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creators of the universe worthy to be called gods?

Well, I think the question basically describes the western conception of god, so yes these are basically gods that you describe, as they are analogous to the common idea of an impregnable puppet-master that exists outside all physical law.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

No we aren’t. You get what you get. You make up stories about it. You know nothing. Then you die.

Well, I guess I just find that to be a limited domain to think in. I simply can't find it in myself to color reality in such statements as these, my friend. For in place of each of those 5 sentences, I instead see a garden of wonder. Each moment that laps upon one's point of observation is actually bizarre enough, if you really take it apart, such that it becomes almost impossible to deny a greater generator. Sure, we are just meek little creatures that were thrown onto some stage, but we also have the power to stop acting and look around ourselves, and that's when wondering gets weirder and not plainer. For me anyway

Where does the meaning really end in words like love and kindness for example. Or even just a word like 'meaning.' Some words are like rainbows with no end. We are the device that might build meaning into everything. Love and kindness might have no end in their depth, if we keep exploring down through them. Everything might be connected with divine magic, if we let it all be

 

[Samantha Rinne]

For my 1000th post I like to make an OP that handles two of my favorite topics: the Simulation Hypothesis and the question towards the nature of god(s).
Suppose we live in a simulation. This one is an accurate simulation of all quantum fields and particles. I.e. it is indistinguishable from the world we live in. I don't go into details as that isn't relevant to the question but feel free to ask when you have questions.
If we are living in such a simulation, it was created. Thus the programmers check one attribute that is often connected with deities. There are other attributes that also fit. Most notably:

• (Limited) omnipotence. The programmers could do anything to the simulation that doesn't break logic.
• (Limited) omniscience. The programmers could possibly know any state the system is in at the moment (but not the future).
• Transcendence. The programmers are "out of this world", in fact, they are not only in a parallel world but in a completely different state of being. They are also
• Out of Time. Their time doesn't have to correlate to our time. They could possibly speed up the simulation or halt it indefinitely. They were there before the universe started and they will be there when it ends.

Now to the title question: is a team of omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creators of the universe worthy to be called gods?

Of course I am most interested to hear from theists but non theists are also invited but please state the form your (non-) belief.

I actually think you've titled this backwards.

As in, Are the Gods Programmers? In math and science we learn about one way groupings, like all scalene triangles are triangles but not all triangles are scalene. Similarly, not all programmers possess the power of God(s) but all Gods must be programmers.

I in fact suggested this in a (currently unfinished) book that I wrote. That reality is a sort of code language called runes. But these runes can look like anything from Japanese to Hebrew to Visual Basic.

 

[Heyo]

I actually think you've titled this backwards.

As in, Are the Gods Programmers? In math and science we learn about one way groupings, like all scalene triangles are triangles but not all triangles are scalene. Similarly, not all programmers possess the power of God(s) but all Gods must be programmers.

I in fact suggested this in a (currently unfinished) book that I wrote. That reality is a sort of code language called runes. But these runes can look like anything from Japanese to Hebrew to Visual Basic.

Interesting take. Not all programmers are gods. I agree. But would those programmers I described (creators of our universe) be gods?

 

[blü 2]

Now to the title question: is a team of omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creators of the universe worthy to be called gods?

As an onlooker, I see this question as a gamebreaking problem for believers.

So I'm rather puzzled why believers don't.

There are endless definitions appropriate to imaginary gods ─ beings who exist only as concepts in individual brains, with no real counterpart.

But there's no meaningful definition of a real god, such that if we found a real suspect, we could tell whether it was God, or a god, or not. No one knows what a real god might be, no one knows how to find out, no one on the inside seems to show any interest in finding out.

And your question above directly addresses a gap in the middle of such notions: the absence of any definition of 'godness', the quality that a real god would have and a real superscientist would lack.

I have some ideas about links between evolution, the advantages of tribal solidarity and cooperation, and among the world's cultures the all but universal belief in divinities, albeit of a huge variety of kinds; but they may not be much help to the theological problems involved here.

 

[Heyo]

I have some ideas about links between evolution, the advantages of tribal solidarity and cooperation, and among the world's cultures the all but universal belief in divinities, albeit of a huge variety of kinds; but they may not be much help to the theological problems involved here.

i'd like to discuss that with you and I might later but for now I'd like to get some more answers that are not influenced by our discussion.

 

[Howard Is]

Well, I guess I just find that to be a limited domain to think in. I simply can't find it in myself to color reality in such statements as these, my friend. For in place of each of those 5 sentences, I instead see a garden of wonder. Each moment that laps upon one's point of observation is actually bizarre enough, if you really take it apart, such that it becomes almost impossible to deny a greater generator. Sure, we are just meek little creatures that were thrown onto some stage, but we also have the power to stop acting and look around ourselves, and that's when wondering gets weirder and not plainer. For me anyway

Where does the meaning really end in words like love and kindness for example. Or even just a word like 'meaning.' Some words are like rainbows with no end. We are the device that might build meaning into everything. Love and kindness might have no end in their depth, if we keep exploring down through them. Everything might be connected with divine magic, if we let it all be

My view isn’t limiting at all. It is simply free of superfluous constructs.

Those five sentences aren’t negativity, or futility, or whatever you have found in them.
They are simply the truth as I experience it, and in no way a barrier to having “the power to stop acting and look around ourselves”.

I experience wonder and fascination, I am not afraid of mysteries.

I am not afraid of uncertainty.

No we aren’t. You get what you get. You make up stories about it. You know nothing. Then you die.

If you have a good heart you can learn to let suffering ennoble you.
If you’re a bit smart you work out how to have some good times.

But all that religious stuff is fairy stories.

If you ask yourself honestly whether you are certain of the truth of any of those religious stories, I expect the answer is no.

Please reread the sentences I bolded in the above quote.

 

[Stevicus]

One idea that I have thought amusing related to Simulation Theory is the question of hardware.

I'm coming from the question of what sort of hardware would give a simulation of what we see and how fast would it be able to run the simulation?

What if, to get the detail needed, we actually need a computer the size of the universe and it runs exactly at the rate the laws of the universe dictate? So, to model the universe takes something the size, complexity, and rate of the universe?

In that case, is it a simulation or not? It could still have a programmer/programmers, which would be god-like for those in the simulation.

For a while, i was on Second Life, and some of the 'moderators' had a 'God' mode allowing them to do things regular members could not do. Why not have that in the simulation of the universe? And there is no reason programmers need to actually have 'God mode'.

I suppose whether it's a simulation or not, we still ascribe certain abilities to an all-powerful "God" (or "gods"), one of which is the ability to wipe everything out and start everything over from scratch. In that sense, it would imply that "someone" is pulling the strings, no matter if the reality we see is genuine or some kind of "simulation."

One thing that strikes me about the apparent structure of the universe is that, we, as humans, appear to be living within a very small part of it. We are also ostensibly isolated, unable to really leave this tiny bubble of air we're living in (other than orbital flights and a few trips to the Moon). If this is a simulation, then it appears to have been purposely designed so that no humans could possibly do anything to mess up the program in any way, shape, or form. It's almost as if the Earth is some sort of cage or fish bowl - or prison. In the middle of nowhere.

 

[Polymath257]

I suppose whether it's a simulation or not, we still ascribe certain abilities to an all-powerful "God" (or "gods"), one of which is the ability to wipe everything out and start everything over from scratch. In that sense, it would imply that "someone" is pulling the strings, no matter if the reality we see is genuine or some kind of "simulation."

One thing that strikes me about the apparent structure of the universe is that, we, as humans, appear to be living within a very small part of it. We are also ostensibly isolated, unable to really leave this tiny bubble of air we're living in (other than orbital flights and a few trips to the Moon). If this is a simulation, then it appears to have been purposely designed so that no humans could possibly do anything to mess up the program in any way, shape, or form. It's almost as if the Earth is some sort of cage or fish bowl - or prison. In the middle of nowhere.

But if we look out, we are no more isolated than the rest of the universe. The distance between us and other stars doesn't seem to be greater than between any other pairs of stars. If anything, our galaxy is larger than most.

So the isolation isn't limited to us: it is a feature of this universe (at least as we perceive it).

 

[Quintessence]

I suppose the question is more profound and compelling for those who operate by the assumptions of classical monotheism, which defines god as singular, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, eternal, etc.

Something is a god because a human deems it worthy of being called such. Gods are that which a person or culture deem worthy of worship. Nothing more, nothing less. What it means to be "worthy" varies across individuals and cultures. From there, what one actively worships is a relevant question for everyone other than monotheists. Just because you understand something as worth of worship, doesn't mean you actually worship it with any significance.

When it comes to the notion that we live in some sort of "simulation" (pardon me while I roll my eyes over here), even if this is the case, I couldn't care less about worshiping it's supposed programmers for the same reason I have no interest in the god of the classical monotheists. I don't find that god-concept compelling, and I already have gods I do find compelling and meaningful in my life.

 

[viole]

For my 1000th post I like to make an OP that handles two of my favorite topics: the Simulation Hypothesis and the question towards the nature of god(s).
Suppose we live in a simulation. This one is an accurate simulation of all quantum fields and particles. I.e. it is indistinguishable from the world we live in. I don't go into details as that isn't relevant to the question but feel free to ask when you have questions.
If we are living in such a simulation, it was created. Thus the programmers check one attribute that is often connected with deities. There are other attributes that also fit. Most notably:

• (Limited) omnipotence. The programmers could do anything to the simulation that doesn't break logic.
• (Limited) omniscience. The programmers could possibly know any state the system is in at the moment (but not the future).
• Transcendence. The programmers are "out of this world", in fact, they are not only in a parallel world but in a completely different state of being. They are also
• Out of Time. Their time doesn't have to correlate to our time. They could possibly speed up the simulation or halt it indefinitely. They were there before the universe started and they will be there when it ends.

Now to the title question: is a team of omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent creators of the universe worthy to be called gods?

Of course I am most interested to hear from theists but non theists are also invited but please state the form your (non-) belief.

i am a gnostic atheist. Ergo, I know there is no God. This is your required statement of faith.

Ii is possible that what you describe is a possible world. Prima facie, I do not see any logical barrier against that hypothesis.

however, those programmers would not be God, at least according to the usual definitions. They would be relative Gods. Ergo Gods for us, but no absolute Gods, as Gods tend to be.

So, that would just move the metaphysical dilemma a step further. Are those programmers the result of naturalistic processes, of other programmers (ad infinitum), or of a God?

ciao

- viole

 

[Heyo]

Since this OP seems to be dead (not there was much life in it to begin with) I'll post a summary of the answers so far. I guessed the belief system if it wasn't stated or clear from the post and summarized the reason to a few words. If you're not OK with your characterization, let me know.

Member belief answer reason
---------------------------------------------------------------------
@syo theist? don't care
@osgart theist? no not supreme innocent
@Israel Khan agnostic yes
@icehorse theist? don't know
@Brickjectivity theist? no not perfect
@Link monotheist? no only one god
@ideogenous_mover theist? yes
@Quintessence polytheist yes
@viole gnostic atheist no there are no gods

edited with new information

 

[Samael_Khan]

Since this OP seems to be dead (not there was much life in it to begin with) I'll post a summary of the answers so far. I guessed the belief system if it wasn't stated or clear from the post and summarized the reason to a few words. If you're not OK with your characterization, let me know.

Member belief answer reason
---------------------------------------------------------------------
@syo theist? don't care
@osgart theist? no not supreme innocent
@Israel Khan atheist? yes
@icehorse theist? don't know
@Brickjectivity theist? no not perfect
@Link monotheist? no only one god
@ideogenous_mover theist? yes
@Quintessence polytheist don't care not worthy of worship
@viole gnostic atheist no there are no gods

I am still unsure about whether I am an atheist or not because I still suspect that there is a creator.

So I am drift between agnostic and deist. Rather consider me agnostic.

 

[Heyo]

As an onlooker, I see this question as a gamebreaking problem for believers.

So I'm rather puzzled why believers don't.

So am I. I suspect they know (maybe unconsciously) very well how severe the problem is and therefore ignore it or refuse to understand it.
But that's armchair psychology. We may never know if we can't get them to talk.

There are endless definitions appropriate to imaginary gods ─ beings who exist only as concepts in individual brains, with no real counterpart.

But there's no meaningful definition of a real god, such that if we found a real suspect, we could tell whether it was God, or a god, or not. No one knows what a real god might be, no one knows how to find out, no one on the inside seems to show any interest in finding out.

And your question above directly addresses a gap in the middle of such notions: the absence of any definition of 'godness', the quality that a real god would have and a real superscientist would lack.

I have asked theists IRL this question and I have asked it on an other channel. The interest in answering was always low, the number of those who didn't understand the question or weren't able to handle the hypothetical was always high and the answers were mixed and the reasons even more. I see this OP as another evidence towards my (Huxleyan) Agnosticism. I don't know what a god is - and neither does anyone else.

I have some ideas about links between evolution, the advantages of tribal solidarity and cooperation, and among the world's cultures the all but universal belief in divinities, albeit of a huge variety of kinds; but they may not be much help to the theological problems involved here.

For me it has become more a psychological conundrum than a theological. I'd like to hear your hypothesis.